i I 


War  tariff  taxes  should  be  repealed  because  without  yielding 
revenue  they  increase  the  burdens  of  the  people.” 


THE  TARIFF. 


SPEECH 


OF 


ION.  WILLIAM  R.  MORRISON, 


IN  THE 


; HOUSE  OF  REPPtESENTATIVES, 


Tuesday,  April  15,  1884. 


“Cf  all  the  false  pretenses  with  which  protection  mocks  its  victims,  the  assnmp 
tion  that  labor  is  helped  or  protected  by  tax  in  r its  earnings  is  the  flimsiest.” 


WASHINGTON 

1884. 


uNii  iv,',  C.V  o'  N.  Branch. 


S 1’  K E 0 n 


HON.  WILLIAM  K.  MORRISON. 


The,  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
and  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  5893)  to  reduce  import  duties 
and  war-tariff  taxes — 


Mr.  MORRISON  said: 

r.  Chairman:  Information  comes  to  us  from  the  executive  branch 


of  the  Government  that  the  people  are  burdened  with  unnecessary  taxes 
and  contribute  annually  large  sums  to  the  public  Treasury  not  necessary^ 
for  public  uses.  The  majority  of  the  House  is  justly  held  responsible 
both  for  its  legislation  and  its  peglect  to  legislate.  The  fact  that  our 
customs  or  taritf  revenue  is  not  limited  to  the  necessities  of  the  Govern- 
ment is,  so  far  as  I know,  not  questioned  by  any  member  of  the  majority 
here  where  bills  to  reduce  as  well  as  to  raise  revenue  must  originate. 
While  taxation  is  admitted  by  all  to  be  excessive,  the  extent  to  which 
its  burdens  are  imposed  directly  and  indirectly  in  excess  of  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Government  is  the  subject  of  much  diversity  of  opin- 
ion. The  amount  of  annual  surplus  is  dependent  upon  the  speed  with 
which  we  pay  the  public  debt. 

The  Treasury  estimate  of  expenditure,  including  such  annual  payment 
on  the  public  debt  as  is  enjoined  by  the  law  under  which  the  debt  was 
made,  is  for  the  current  year  $40, 000, 000,  and  for  next  year  $60,000,000 
“"less  than  the  estimated  revenues  on  the  basis  of  existing  laws.  The 
Treasury  estimate  of  annual  surplus  may,  therefore,  be  fairly  stated 
^at  $50,000,000,  Of  this  needless  taxation  and  surplus  with  their  at- 
"Itendant  aggravated  evils  w^e  can  not  fail  to  relieve  the  people  without 
flagrant  disregard  of  public  duty. 


REDUCTION  OF  TAXES  ONLY  REFORM  PRACTICABLE. 


It  is  not  claimed  that  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  will  afford 
all  the  relief  demanded  of  the  people’s  representatives.  It  is  but  an 
advance  toward  and  a promise  of  more  complete  revenue  reform,  to  at- 
tain which  a general  revision  of  the  tariff  and  a more  equitable  adjust- 
ment of  rates  on  its  long  list  of  dutiable  articles  is  essential.  Such  a 
revision  and  adjustment  was  believed  to  be  unattainable  at  the  present 
session  of  Congress.  A bill  was  therefore  reported  having  for  its  chief 
purpose  the  reduction  of  taxes.  It  will  create  no  surprise  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  minority  members  of  the  committee  the  bill  is  not  suffi- 
ciently harmonious  in  its  relations  to  be  approved  by  them  or  by  pro- 
tectionists generally.  They  find  in  it  no  merit  because,  as  they  allege, 
it  proposes  to  reduce  duties  “alike,”  and  without  regard  to  particular 
industries.  To  protectionists  any  measure  is  without  harmony  and 
without  merit  which  deprive^s  their  favorites  of  any  bounty,  though  such 
measure  but  responds  to  the  statement  of  the  fiscal  officer  of  the  Gov- 


4 


ernment  that,  “The  question  still  presses,  what  legislation  is  necessary 
to  relieve  the  people  of  unnecessary  taxes?” 

It  would  be  only  j ust  to  correct  the  inequalities  in  the  present  law  by 
an  increased  tax  or  duty  on  wool,  tin-plates,  cotton-ties  and  wire-rods, 
say  our  opponents  who  find  neither  harmony  nor  merit  in  a tax  bill 
which  only  reduces  taxes, 

UORIZONTAIi  REDUCTION. 

A reduction  “alike”  or  horizontal  is  not  the  most  logical  or  best,  but 
none  other  was  practicable.  Protectionists  oppose  it  not  because  it  is 
to  them  illogical  in  its  method  of  reduction,  but  because  it  is  a reduction 
at  all.  The  late  revision,  after  leaving  the  hands  of  the  manufacturers 
and  their  Tariff  Commission,  was  completed  in  conference,  of  which 
three  leading  members Avere  Messrs.  Morrill,  Kelley,  and  Sherman, 
who  have  made  all  the  tariffs  of  the  last  25  yeare.  They  are  the  chief 
architects  of  the  present  system,  and  it  will  not  be  lightly  said  by  the 
friends  of  the  system  that  the  revision  as  it  came  from  such  hands  wiis 
not  consistent  and  harmonious.  They  laid  some  duties  as  low  jis  10, 
others  as  high  as  100  per  cent,  and  higher.  These  are  to  be  reduced  20 
per  cent.,  or  to  8 and  80.  Relatively  they  remain  the  same.  To  the 
people  they  Avill  be  a little  lighter. 

• , This  horizontal  or  equal  method  is  not  new.  In  1872  it  was  adopted 
to  reduce  and  in  1875  again  to  increase  the  tariff — this  too  by  those  who 
now  find  in  it  no  merit. 

Once  deprive  the  system  of  its  enormous  bounties  and  the  right  ad- 
justment of  rates  will  be  a matter  of  easy  accomplishment. 

TAXES  WILL  BE  MORE  REDUCED  THAN  REVENUE. 

Gentlemen  are  disturbed  lest  revenues  will  increase  under  the  bill. 
Professedly  they  are  alarmed  at  the  possibility  of  taking  less  of  the  peo- 
ple’s earnings  while  putting  more  money  in  the  people’s  Treasury.  The 
enactment  of  a law  that  would  accomplish  this  should  not  be  clas.sed 
among  national  calamities. 

The  bill  will  decrease  the  revenue  and  lessen  the  burden  of  ta.xation 
in  largely  increased  proportion. 

There  are  now  but  few  duties  which  do  not  much  exceed  revenue 
rates.  Except  as  to  these  the  reduced  duties  will  leave  our  own  prod- 
ucts above  the  level  of  fair  competition,  and  our  own  people  will  in  the 
future,  as  always  in  the  past,  supply  their  own  wants  by  their  own 
matchless  skill.  The  year  1860  Avas  a time  of  plenty.  With  a tariff 
too  loAV  for  revenue — lower  by  one-half  than  that  Ave  now  offer  to  mod- 
ify— Ave  had  in  fourteen  years  less  than  two  of  a^lversity,  more  tlian 
tAvelve  of  wonderful  progress.  The  laborer  for  wages  Avas  at  least  as 
well  and  the  groAver  of  grain  better  paid  than  they  are  in  this  year  1884, 
and  in  that  year,  1860,  of  bounteous  plenty  our  importations  of  foreign 
goods  Avere  less  to  the  person,  or  in  proportion  to  population,  than  in 
the  years  1880-1882.  (I.) 

FREE  SALT,  COAL,  AND  LUMBER. 

To  the  list  of  articles  now  imported  free  of  duty,  amounting  to  nearly 
one-third  of  all  our  importations,  it  is  proposed  to  add  salt,  coal,  wood, 
and  lumber.  Salt  is  already  freed  from  tjix  for  fishermen,  also  for  the 
exporter  of  meats,  to  lessen  the  cost  of  food  to  the  people  of  other 
countries,  not  for  our  own;  coal  is  untaxed  for  use  on  vessels  having  by 
law  the  exclusive  right  to  the  coasting  trade,  or  engaged  in  the  foreign 
carrying  trade — a privilege  denied  to  persons  engaged  in  other  pursuits. 
Such  privileges  and  exemptions  should  not  be  confined  to  the  few,  but 


extended  to  all.  It  is  now  more  than  twelve  3^ears  since  the  protec- 
tionists themselves,  the  late  President  Garfield  among  them,  passed  a 
bill  in  the  House  placing  coal  and  salt  on  the  free  list.  Since  then  they 
have  done  nothing  which  so  much  commended  them  to  the  people. 

The  revenue  from  wood  aud  lumber  imported  and  hereafter  to  be  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty  has  in  the  ten  years  last  past  not  much  exceeded 
$10,000,000,  or  $1,000,000  per  aiiuum.  The  census  returns  show  the 
domestic  wooden  products  to  exceed  $500,000,000  per  annum.  If  the 
average  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  theimported  wood  adds  but  10  percent, 
to  the  price  of  that  produced  here,  its  increased  cost  to  the  people  has 
been  $50, 000, 000  per  annum,  or  $500,000,000  in  the  ten  years.  Inthese 
ten  years,  under  pretense  of  taxing  this  article  to  secure  $10,000,000  of 
revenue,  we  have  compelled  the  people  to  pay  $500,000,000  in  bounty  to 
encourage  the  destruction  of  forests  and  the  felling  of  trees;  and  in  the 
same  time  we  have  given  more  than  18,000,000  acres  of  land  under  the 
timber-culture  act  as  bounty  to  encourage  the  planting  of  other  trees 
and  other  forests. 

HIDDEN  AND  CONCEALED  ENORMITIES  OF  PRESENT  LAW. 

In  the  estimates  made  by  Mr.  Evans,  a clerk  of  experience  in  the 
Bureau  of  Statistics,  which  actual  payments  on  importations  show  to 
be  but  estimates  though  based  on  official  data,  it  appears  the  bill  would 
leave  in  the  cottons  but  two  articles — of  cotton  yarus,  not  the  finest — du- 
tiable above  40  per  cent. ; in  woolens  but  one  coarse  carpet  wool,  which 
we  do  not  produce,  above  60  per  cent. , and  in  iron  and  steel  but  few 
above  50  per  cent.  These  rates  have  been  fixed  as  the  limit  above  which 
on  these  articles  no  duty  shall  be  collected.  The  jiresent  rate  on  the 
finest  cotton  is  40  per  cent. , and  yet  it  is  an  unquastioned  fact,  as  shown 
by  invoices  and  payments  made,  that  duties  exceeding  100  per  cent, 
(exceeding  the  first  cost)  are  exacted  and  jraid  on  cotton  goods  the  duty 
upon  which  is,  in  the  estimates  referred  to,  stated  to  be  less  than  20 
per  cent.  The  same  is  true  of  iron  and  steel  in  diftereut  degrees.  In 
the  woolen  schedule  these  abuses  are  most  glaring.  In  all  they  result 
from  enormities  hidden  and  concealed  both. in  classification  of  articles 
and  rates  of  duty.  The  limit  of  40,  50,  aud  60  per  cent,  on  the  cotton, 
metal,  and  woolen  schedules  is  intended  to  expose  and  remedy  these 
hidden  enormities. 

There  are  those  who  assume  the  virtue  of  a willingness  to  abate  some- 
thing  from  custom-house  taxes,  and  aspire  to  be  counted  revenue  re- 
formers, but  do  not  find  in  this  measure  the  relief  demanded  by  them. 
Tho.se  really  desirous  of  affording  some  relief  from  existing  abuses  will 
not  fail  to  find  their  opportunity  in  removing  taxes  j-eilding  $8,000,000 
on  sugar,  as  much  on  cotton  and  woolen  goods,  and  $14,000,000  on 
other  articles  used  in  every  home. 

MORRILL  TARIFF  AND  WAR  INCREASE. 

In  March,  1861,  the  tariff  of  previous  years,  sometimes  named  in  con- 
tradictory terms  a “ free-trade  tariff,”  gave  place  to  the  Morrill  tariff, 
which  the  House  had  passed  early  in  1860,  and  which  its  author  at  the 
time  said  “would  place  our  people  on  a level  of  fair  competition  with 
the  rest  of  the  world.”  Goods  which  were  imported  under  this  tariff 
act  of  March,  1861,  for  $100  must  pay  to-day  $155;  an  increase  resulting 
from  war  rates  and  additions  under  various  pretexts  still  remains  aver- 
aging 55  per  cent,  of  the  former  duty  and  on  many  articles  double  as 
much.  The  reductions  proposed  are  so  limited  as  never  to  place  our 
people  below  but  to  leave  them  far  above  the  level  of  fair  comjietition 


6 


«n  which  the  Morrill  tariff  placed  them.  This  is  proposed  in  the  hope 
that  there  might  be  no  division  among  the  people’s  representatives  on 
the  “question”  which  “still  prasses  what  legislation  is  necessary  to 
relieve  the  people  from  unnecessary  taxes.” 

Duties  sufficient  for  protection  in  1861  ought  to  be  more  than  suffi- 
«ienb  after  twenty-five  years.  It  Ls  a cardinal  faith  of  the  protectionist, 
80  far  as  he  has  any  faith  not  measured  in  dollars  and  cents,  that  pro- 
tection chaapens  production,  strengthens  productive  power,  and  fits  its 
favorites  for  less  dependence  upon  the  bounty  of  the  Government.  Why, 
then,  may  we  not  expect  to  have  their  co-operation  in  a reduction  of 
taxes  so  moderate?  And  shall  we  not  have  the  co-operation  of  their 
incidental  allies?  Or  must  they  make  up  in  works  what  they  lack  in 
faith,  and  still  give  and  give  to  the  miserable  system  dying  of  its  own 
excesses? 

I.ATE  UEVISION  ONLY  BEDUCTION  IN  NAME. 

In  executive  communications,  and  in  the  report  which  I had  the 
honor  to  make  on  behalf  of  the  committee,  it  has  been  already  shown 
that  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government,  its  fisciil  officer  or  depart- 
ment, the  Tariff  Commission,  and  the  people  were  during  the  last  Con- 
gress in  entire  accord  as  to  the  necessity  of  a substantial  reduction  of 
tariff  taxes,  and  that  all  the  agencies  charged  with  that  duty  have 
failed  to  do  more  than  make  a reduction  in  name,  not  in  fact.  In  other 
words,  all  the  agencies  chosen  to  revise  and  reduce  the  tariff,  including 
the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  have  been  deceived  themselves,  and  for  a 
time  deceived  the  people,  into  the  belief  that  they  had  been  relieved  from 
the  payment  of  unnecessary  taxas  they  are  yet  compelled  to  pay. 

The  official  statement  appended  (II)  shows  that  the  average  cost  of 
importing  goods  valued  at  $100  wtis  only  $1,74  less  under  the  new  than 
under  the  old  law,  and  that  the  average  cost  or  duty  under  the  new 
law  is  41  (40,91)  per  cent. 

It  is  also  shown  that  the  late  revision  and  alleged  reduction  of  duties 
has  not  been  followed  by  increased  but  by  reduced  importations  result- 
ing in  lass  revenue;  that  the  largely  increiised  protective  rates  made  in 
some  branches  of  all  leading  industries  have  not  been  followed  by  in- 
creased compensation  to  the  workers  in  these  industries,  but  the  reduc- 
tion of  wages  begun  before  the  revision  has  been  continued  and  often 
followed  by  further  reductions;  and  that  our  manufacturing  capacity 
exceeds  the  wants  of  our  own  people,  resulting  in  lower  wages,  loss  of 
employment,  enforced  idleness,  suffering,  and  misfortune. 

This  is  the  protective  scheme  we  are  asked  to  let  alone,  beeause  we 
are  told  the  country  wants  relief  from  Congressional  agitation. 

AGITATION, 

Tlie  insufficient  not  to  say  deceptive  character  of  the  late  revision,  the 
manner  of  making  it,  and  the  circumstances  attending  its  adoption  alike 
forbid  that  it  should  be  permanent.  When  it  was  being  forced  upon  the 
country  with  assumptions  and  as.surances  which  have  not  been  verified,  I 
warned  its  authoi-s  it  would  give  no  contentment  to  the  public  mind  and 
no  rest  from  agitation,  because  it  did  not  afford  the  relief  admitted  to  be 
a measure  of  justice  by  the  commission  packed  to  perpetuate  existing 
abuses.  I said  then  that  its  authors  in  and  out  of  Congress  but  deceived 
themselves  if  they  expected  from  this  measure  so  much  as  a temporary 
settlement. 

In  a speech  made  in  January  last  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  Hon.  Columbus 
Delano,  a protectionist,  long  a member  of  Congress  and  memlier  of  Presi- 


dent  Grant’s  Cabinet,  said  substantially,  that  of  his  own  personal  knowl- 
edge the  Tariff  ComniLssion  was  secured  by  the  manufacturers  whose  sal- 
aried agent  they  caused  to  be  made  its  president  and  as  their  agent  here, 
after  his  and  his  employers’  commivssion  had  made  its  report  (his  own  re- 
port) he  secured  many  changes  in  it  greatly  to  the  advantage  of  manu- 
facturers. I hardly  need  to  say  that  a revision  procured  through  such 
agencies  and  methods  is  entitled  to  no  respect  whatever. 

It  is  correctly  said  that  a tariff  too  lo  w necessitates  change  to  obtain 
needed  revenue.  It  is  equally  true  when  too  high,  as  ours  now  is, 
change  is  necessary  to  avoid  a surplus  from  imports  on  which  the  duty 
is  not  prohibitory.  The  only  security  from  agitation  and  change, there- 
fore, is  to  confine  the  taxing  power  to  its  rightful  purj)Ose  of  obtaining 
revenue  limited  to  the  necessities  of  the  Government.  When  no  more 
revenue  is  needed  by  the  Government  of  the  people,  it  has  attained  the 
limit  of  its  power  to  tax  the  people. 

PROPERTY  SHOUnD  PAY  THE  TAXES. 

It  is  now  nearly  8 years  since  I first  said  here: 

Burdens  of  Government  should  be  borne  in  proportion  to  ability  to  bear  them- 
Property  should  pay  the  taxes.  He  Avbo  has  much  should  pay  much ; he  who 
has  little  should  pay  little ; and  he  who  has  none,  none. 

And  later — 

Legislation  which  helps  an  unjust  distribution  of  property,  or  an  unfair  di- 
vision of  the  proceeds  of  labor,  is  a great  public  wrong. 

And  it  is  just  because  of  this  great  public  wrong  that  burdens  are 
unequal  which  are  laid  upon  the  necessities  and  comforts  of  human 
existence.  The  First  Congress,  pressed  by  the  needs  of  a nation  griev- 
ously in  debt,  with  an  empty  treasury,  departed  from  this  most  just 
rule  of  equal  taxation  and  resorted  to  the  indirect  method  of  obtaining 
revenue.  This  was  justified  at  the  time  upon  the  assumption  that  an 
impost  on  trade  was  a tax  in  proportion  to  ability  to  pay  it,  because  it 
was  claimed  that  consumption  was  generally  proportioned  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  individuals.  This  assumption  has  not  been  verified  in 
our  experience.  It  was  in  fact  never  true.  With  the  then  conditions 
and  habits  of  our  people  it  may  be  the  evil  effects  of  the  plan  were  not  ap- 
parent. Subsequent  history  not  only  shows  its  monstrous  inj  ustice  but 
its  baneful  results.  Some  of  these  are  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  this 
method  of  obtaining  revenue  so  increasing  the  cost  of  living  consumes 
all  the  earnings  of  a great  majority  of  the  people  in  the  struggle  for 
existence, 

UNEQUAL  BURDENS  OP  TARIFF  TAXES. 

Estimates  based  on  the  census  statistics  show  that  as  many  as  18,00(?,- 
000  of  our  people  do  some  work  or  are  occupied  in  some  business;  that 
the  average  earnings  of  at  least  16,000,000  of  these  do  not  much  exceed 
$300  and  are  wholly  consumed  in  means  of  daily  subsistence.  These, 
too,  arethe  millions  who  in  shop  and  field  strike  the  blows  of  all  produc- 
tion. All  the  accumulations  of  and  boasted  additions  to  our  national 
and  individual  wealth  go  to  one-tenth  of  those  who  earn  it;  and  of  these 
but  few  indeed  appropriate  the  great  mass  of  the  savings  of  the  people 
and  are  enriched  by  the  profits  of  the  labor  of  other  men. 

Like  estimates  will  show  that  the  few  who  profit  most  from  the  labor 
of  all  contribute  little  under  this  system  of  unequal  taxation,  not  more 
than  2 per  cent,  of  their  savings,  while  the  great  mass  of  workers,  in- 
cluding the  dependent  poor,  pay  the  bulk  of  taxes,  all  of  which  is  sub- 
tracted from  the  too  scanty  means  of  comfortable  living. 


8 


This  indirect  method  of  obtaining  revenue  came  early  into  use  among 
those  who  had  not  only  pledged  but  expended  their  fortunes  for  the 
right  to  establish  commerce.  Once  established,  they  taxed  it,  for  the 
best  of  reasons — they  had  nothing  else  to  tax.  They  were  impartial, 
too,  in  their  exactions.  Manufactures,  as  well  as  tea,  coffee,  and  spices, 
articles  produced  and  those  not  produced  here,  were  made  to  contrib- 
ute. Then  as  now  the  country’s  commerce  was  largely  with  England, 
whose  king  had  caused  the  substance  of  the  people  to  be  eaten  out. 
Tax-paying  was  not  a favorite  employment  at  that  time,  though  the 
taxes  on  manufactures  were  but  one-fifth  of  what  we  now  pay.  Light  as 
they  were,  it  may  be  they  were  yet  lighter  when  it  was  declared,  as  it 
was,  that  their  food  and  clothing,  including  tea,  coffee,  and  spices,  not 
grown  here,  were  taxed  for  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  man- 
ufactures, for  had  not  our  commerce  been  cut  off  by  England,  against 
whom  manufactures  were  to  be  encouraged  and  protected  ? 

REVEXUE  TARIFF— FREE  TR.ADB. 

To  get  away  from  impost  taxes  is  to  us  practically  impossible.  Cer- 
tainly I do  not  expect  the  people  to  abolish  a revenue  system  to  which 
they  have  been  so  long  accustomed.  I do  expect  to  confine  it  to  its 
rightful  purpose  and  correct  its  abuses.  Need  I repeat  that  when  the 
Government  has  taken  from  the  people  all  that  it  needs  for  the  cost  of 
frugal  administration,  then  the  hand  of  the  tax-gatherer  must  be 
staid.  In  such  a limit  to  the  right  to  lay  taxes  the  protectionist,  find- 
ing himself  no  longer  pensioned  on  the  industries  of  the  country  more 
or  less  prosperous  than  his  own,  will  discover  free  trade.  Ours  is  a 
very  free  country  of  very  free  men,  both  very  freely  taxed.  In  the 
same  sense  that  we  are  free  men  in  a free  country  freely  taxed,  we  may 
be  correctly  named  free-traders  when  we  insist  that  the  trade  and  com- 
merce of  the  country  and  the  necessities  of  comfortable  living  shall  be 
freed  from  all  taxes  not  essential  to  the  Government  for  public  uses. 

INTERNAL-REVENUE. 

The  amount  required  from  customs  is  dependent  upon  what  may  be 
received  from  internal  revenue.  The  abolition  of  internal  revenue 
means  free  and  cheaper  liquors  but  heavier  taxed  and  higher  priced 
sugar  and  other  articles  essential  in  every  household.  I am  not  called 
upon  to  defend  the  system,  which  has  many  abuses.  Of  the  two  sys- 
tems it  is  the  cheaper  in  administration,  immensely  cheaper  in  its 
results.  The  spies  and  informers  complained  of  are  common  to  both. 
So  offensive  is  the  impost  that  gentlewomen  are  required  for  its  exe- 
cution in  part.  The  repeal  of  internal  revenue  means  more  than  addi- 
tional cost  of  living  and  greater  privation  to  the  poor ; it  means  a per- 
manent public  debt  which  few  own  and  many  pay  and  which  corrupts 
administration.  The  earlier  statesmen  described  it  as  a moral  canker 
and  dangerous  to  good  government. 

While  we  cannot  doubt  the  existence  of  great  wrongs  in  the  execu- 
tion of  internal-revenue  laws,  especially  in  the  South  Atlantic  States, 
many  of  these  may  be  cured.  Neither  is  it  because  of  these  abuses  of 
■'.  dministration  that  the  abolition  of  the  liquor  and  tobacco  taxes  is  de- 
manded in  the  States  far  north  and  substantially  free  from  these  fla- 
grant abuses  of  administration. 

Mr.  Jefferson  has  been  summoned  here  as  often  as  four  times  in  a sin- 
gle day  and  made  to  bear  testimony  to  the  ‘ ‘ infernal  ’ ’ character  of  a 
tax  on  whisky. 


y 


It  was  Mr.  Jeffereon  who  said: 

'Public  debt  is  a moral  canker  from  which  we  ought  to  emancipate  posterity. 

It  was  Mr.  Jefferson  who  said: 

Agriculture,  manufactures,  commerce,  and  navigation  are  the  most  thriving 
•’when  left  most  free  to  individual  enterprise.  Protection  from  easual  embarrass- 
ments, however,  may  sometimes  be  reasonably  interposed. 

It  was  Mr.  Jefferson  w^ho  said: 

Foreign  spirits,  wines,  teas,  colfee,  cigars,  salt  are  articles  of  as  innocent  con- 
sumption as  broadcloth  and  silks,  and  ought,  like  them,  to  pay  but  the  average 
ad  valorem  duty  of  other  imported  comforts.  All  of  them  are  ingredients  in  our 
happiness,  and  the  government  which  steps  out  of  the  ranks  of  the  ordinary  ar- 
ticles of  consumption  to  select  and  lay  under  disproportionate  burdens  a par- 
ticular one,  because  it  is  a comfort,  pleasing  to  the  taste,  or  necessary  to  health, 
and  will  therefore  be  bought,  is  in  that  particular  a tyranny. 

It  was  Mr.  Jefferson  who  said: 

Taxes  on  consumption,  like  those  on  capital  or  income,  to  be  just  must  be  uni- 
form. 

It  was  Mr.  Jefferson  who  said: 

I do  not  mean  to  say  that  it  may  not  be  for  the  general  interest  to  foster  for  a 
while  certain  infant  manufactures  until  they  are  strong  enough  to  stand  against 
foreign  rivals;  but  when  evident  that  they  will  never  do  so,  it  is  against  right 
to  make  the  other  bi-anches  of  industry  support  them. 

It  was  Mr. ^Jefferson  who  said: 

When  it  is  found  that  France  could  not  make  sugar  under  6 francs  (h)  a 
pound,  was  it  not  tyranny  to  restrain  her  citizens  from  importing  at  i franc  (h), 
•or  would  it  not  have  been  so  to  have  laid  a duty  of  5 francs  (.h)  on  the  imported  ? 
The  permitting  an  exchange  of  industries  with  other  nations  is  a direct  encour- 
agement of  your  own,  which  without  that  would  bring  you  nothing  for  your 
couafort,  and  would  of  course  cease  to  be  produced. 

It  is  a little  singular  that  Mr.  Jefferson  should  be  so  often  summoned 
here  by  the  friends  of  the  bounty  system  to  tell  us  so  little  when  he 
knew  so  much.  He  was  not  made  to  bear  witness  to  the  moral  canker 
and  corrupting  influence  of  a public  debt,  or  that  ail  industries  are  most 
thriving  when  left  most  free  to  individual  enterprise;  that  taxes  on  con- 
sumption to  be  just  must  be  uniform;  that  protection  is  only  justifi- 
able “to  foster  for  awhile  certain  infant  manufactures  until  they  are 
strong  enough  to  stand  against  foreign  rivals,  but  when  evident  that 
they  will  never  be  so,  it  is  against  right  to  make  the  other  branches  of 
industry  support  them.  ” Why  was  he  not  permitted  to  tell  the  whole 
truth? 

Macaulay  says: 

There  is  a certain  class  of  men  who,  while  they  profess  to  hold  in  reverence 
the  great  names  and  great  actions  of  former  times,  never  look  at  them  for  any 
other  purpose  than  in  order  to  find  in  them  some  excuse  for  existing  abuses. 
In  every  venerable  precedent  they  pass  by  what  is  essential  and  take  only  what 
is  accidental;  they  keep  out  of  sight  what  is  beneficial  and  hold  up  to  public 
imitation  all  that  is  defective. 

ABUSES,  TO  CONTINUE  WHICH  INTEENAH-REVENUE  IS  TO  BE  REPEALED. 

What  are  some  of  the  existing  abuses  for  whi -h  some  excuse  is  to  be 
found  in  professed  reverence  for  the  great  name  and  great  actions  of 
Jefferson?  In  the  first  six  months  under  the  new  tariff  36,000,000 
yards  of  woolen  goods  for  women’s  and  children’s  clothing  were  imported, 
and  uiion  every  $100  worth  (at  first  cost)  $68.32  was  paid  in  duty. 
Under  the  old  law  the  duty  would  have  been  $68.74 — 42  cents  more. 

While  this  abuse  continues  to  exLst  the  grower  of  grain,  who  is  com- 
pelled to  find  a foreign  market  and  exchanges  his  product  for  woolen 
.goods,  must  on  his  return  give  to  the  Government  out  of  every  hun- 


10 


dred  yards  of  cloth  68 J yards  for  the  privilege  of  selling  the  other  31  f 
yards.  This  helps  those  most  clamorous  for  internal-revenue  repeal, 
who,  or  their  friends,  make  woolen  goods  to  sell  31t  yards  as  nearly 
as  possible  at  the  first  cost  of  the  100  yards  imx)orted.  At  the  last 
session,  while  promising  to  reduce  tariff  taxes,  these  new  disciples  of* 
Jelferson  so  increased  them  on  manufactures  of  iron  and  other  metals, 
including  cotton  and  other  machinery,  that  the  planter  who  exchanges* 
100  bales  of  cotton  for  any  of  these  manufactures  must  on  his  return 
surrender  to  the  Government  the  foreign  proceeds  of  45  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  selling  or  using  that  received  in  exchange  for  the  other  55  hales. 
All  makers  of  iron  products,  with  their  especial  representatives,  profess 
reverence  for  the  great  name  of  Jefferson  in  continuance  of  this  abuse. 

Yet  these  are  hut  examples  of  the  innumerable  existing  abuses  which 
it  is  proposed  to  perpetuate  by  the  repeal  of  the  internal  revenue;  for 
when  we  shall  have  abandoned  this  profitable  source  of  revenue  the 
lightest  of  our  many  burdens  carried  only  by  the  willing,  then  will  the 
protectionist  claim  to  find  reason  not  only  to  continue  but  even  to  aug- 
ment the  enormous  bounties  and  exactions  of  the  present  tariff. 

It  is  said  this  is  a war  tax  and  must  be  repealed  now  that  the  war  has  ■ 
ended.  The  obligations  of  the  war  have  not  ended  with  the  war  itself. 
In  the  last  twenty-two  years  we  have  paid  nearly  $800,000,000,  and  in 
the  next  twenty- two  years  we  will  pay  not  lass  than  $1,000,000,000  for 
pensions.  The  bonded  debt  was  never  quite  $2,400,000,000.  It  is  yet 
more  than  $1,200,000,000.  The  cost  of  the  war  is  not  half  paid.  In- 
ternal taxes  which  yielded  more  than  eight-tenths  of  the  revenue  ob- 
tained from  that  source  have  been  repealed.  Liquoi-s  and  tobacco,  whichi 
yielded  less  than  two-tenths  alone,  are  now  made  to  contribute.  And' 
whatever  else  may  be  said  of  the  system,  what  it  takes  from  the  people 
it  puts  in  their  Treasury.  What  under  the  urgencies  of  war  was  added 
to  the  weight  of  customs,  especially  that  which  yields  bounties  indi- 
rectly, remains  to  plague  us,  cut  off  our-  commerce,  and  prevent  an  ex- 
change of  our  products  abroad  for  which  there  is  no  market  at  home. 

These  additions  or  war-tariff  rates  should  be  repealed,  because  with-  - 
out  yielding  revenue  they  increase  the  taxes  and  burdens  of  the  people. 
Until  these  are  removed  internal  revenues  ought  not  to  be  further  re- 
duced. Even  the  repeal  of  the  tobacco  tax  would  be  unwise  finance' 
and  only  justifiable  iis  a help,  if  need  be,  to  the  removal  of  tariff  abuses. 

UNSATISFACTORY  CONDITION  OF  ALL  INDUSTRIES. 

The  office  of  all  others  I am  least  ambitious  to  fill  is  that  of  alarmist 
or  foreboder  of  evil  to  my  country  and  its  people.  And  certainly  the  - 
report  of  the  committee  does  not  overstate  the  fact  in  saying  “ the  con- 
dition of  manufacturing  industries  is  not  satisfactory.’^  Those  of  us 
who  refuse  to  shut  our  eyes  to  facts  must  admit  this  to  be  true  of  most 
if  not  all  industries. 

In  that  referred  to  in  the  committee’sreport,  iron  and  steel,  it  is  shown 
that  its  most  important  division  was  idle  one-third  of  the  time  in  the  • 
year  1882  and  yet  produced  all  the  iron  the  people  could  use.  In  the 
year  1883  less  iron  was  made  than  in  the  previous  year,  and  therefore 
more  mills  were  idle.  The  same  is  true  of  all  leading  industries;  they/- 
have  outrun  in  their  capacity  to  make  goods  the  ability  of  the  people*, 
to  use  and  pay  for  them.  Our  mills,  furnaces,  forges,  cards,  and  spin- 
dles more  than  equal  the  wants  of  our  population.  Shall  we  wait  foff 
our  people  to  grow  up  with  the  mills,  cards,  and  spindles?  That  wiliis 
never  be  while  Congress  offers  bounties  for  the  products  of  new  milla. . 


11 


In  the  same  journal  of  daily  news  you  may  read  of  manufacturers 
belbi  e Congress  protesting  against  a reduction  of  tiixes  which  yield  them 
bounties,  of  the  opening  of  new  mills  or  shops,  of  old  ones  shutting 
down  and  running,  on  part  time,  of  a 20  per  cent,  horizontal  cut  or  re- 
duction in  wages,  and  of  manufacturers  before  Congress  protesting 
against  a reduction  of  taxes  which  yield  them  bounties,  hypocritically 
assuming  that  they  are  protesting  that  wages  may  be  maintained. 

While  the  mills  stand  still  and  their  ownem  divide  among  themselves 
profits  eight  months  of  the  twelve,  what  is  the  laborer  to  do  ? To  take, 
with  or  without  the  forms  of  law,  part  of  the  earnings  of  those  who 
work  the  whole  twelve  months  to  pay  twelve  mouths’  wages  to  those 
who  are  permitted  to  work  but  eight,  would  be  dishonest.  To  maiu- 
tiiiu  by  taxation  an  industrial  system  which  enforces  idleness  with  its 
attendant  suffering  upon  men  willing  to  work  is  a crime.  Both  are 
impossible  of  long  continuance  consistent  with  the  welfare  of  the  State, 
for  when  all  who  are  willing  to  work  find  employment  their  earning 
but  little  exceed  their  daily  subsistence.  Want  of  employment  for 
great  masses  of  industrious  men  from  any  cause  can  not  fiiil  sooner  or 
later  to  bring  suffering,  misfortune,  and  hunger,  and  hungry  men  are 
dangerous. 

WE  WANT  A MARKET  ABROAD  FOR  WHAT  WE  CAN  NOT  SELL  AT  HOME. 

When  industrial  and  financial  misfortune  came  upon  us  in  1873  it 
was  credited  by  protectionists  to  a depreciated  currency  and  other  relics 
of  the  war,  excepting  always  tariff  taxes.  Abundant  harvesfs  here,  and 
short  crops  abroad,  brought  us  good  prices  for  our  grain  in  foreign  mar- 
kets and  out  of  trouble  in  1879.  Evidently  the  stoppage  of  mills  and 
shops,  the  cutting  of  wages,  and  want  of  employment  for  men  willing  to 
work,  are  danger  signals  to  all  industrial  interests.  It  is  not  new  indus- 
trial establishments  we  need,  for  we  have  more  than  are  employed.  It 
is  not  men  to  work,  for  many  are  idle;  besides  we  have  free  trade  in  labor 
and  a half  million  a year  come  from  abroad.  What  we  want  is  a mar- 
ket; somebody  to  buy  abroad  what  we  can  not  sell  at  home.  Agricult- 
ural products  can  not  relieve  us,  as  in  the  financial  troubles  of  1873  to 
1879,  because  the  customers  who  then  bought  of  us  have  other  sources  of 
supply  in  India  and  elsewhere  in  the  East.  These  are  being  so  developed 
that  they  can  supply  food  in  ever-iucreasing  abundance. 

If  this  were  not  so  the  division  of  labor  and  its  growing  productive 
power  compels  us  to  find  other  markets  than  our  own  for  manufactures 
which  have  so  outgrown  the  wants  of  our  own  people.  Whatever  else 
the  tariff  has  or  has  not  done  it  has  taxed  us  out  of  all  other  markets 
than  our  own ; and  such  was  the  purpose  of  its  au  thors.  On  this  subj  ect 
Mr.  Moreill  said  while  a member  of  the  House: 

When  one  nation  admits  cotton  or  any  raw  material  free  of  duty  other  nations 
are  forced  to  follow  the  example  or  cease  to  manufacture  beyond  their  oAvn  con- 
sumption, unless  they  give  equal  compensatory  advantage  upon  exports. 

When  Mr.  Morrill  and  his  associates,  who  made  and  who  continue 
the  present  tariff,  refused  to  admit  ores,  coal,  wood,  wool,  and  other  raw 
materials  free  of  duty,  they  were  not  ignorant  of  the  effect  of  such  re- 
fusal and  must  have  intended  our  people  should  “cease  to  manufacture 
beyond  their  own  wants.” 

UNTAXED  MATERIALS. 

That  we  may  manufacture  beyond  our  own  wants  the  policy  of  Mr. 
Morrill  and  his  associates  must  be  so  changed  that  in  materials  con- 
stituting so  large  an  element  of  the  cost  of  production  our  people  must 


be  placed  on  a level  of  fair  competition  vdth  all  others.  It  was  for 
this  purpose  that  in  the  bill  as  first  presented  by  me  ores,  coal,  and 
some  of  the  cruder  materials  for  use  in  manufactures  were  placed  on 
the  free-list.  Ultimately  and  speedily,  too,  all  classes  would  be  bene- 
fited by  such  legislation — the  manufacturers  first,  laborers  most.  Yet 
the  proposition  met  no  favorable  response  Irom  the  manufacturers  them- 
selves, or,  so  far  as  I am  advised,  from  any  member  here  claiming  to  be 
the  especial  representative  of  the  industrial  interests.  Untaxed  ores 
lie  at  the  bottom  of  all  real  reform  in  the  metal  schedule.  The  tax  on 
iron  ore  with  interest  and  profits  on  investment  goes  into  and  increases 
the  cost  of  the  pig,  then  into  the  bar  and  the  more  finished  product, 
adding  the  cost  at  every  stage  of  production.  The  same  is  true  of  all 
the  cruder  materials  which  are  used  in  the  processes  of  production. 
Kevenue  must  be  derived  from  products  ready  for  consumption  if  ours 
is  to  be  a manufacturing  nation  at  all  commensurate  with  its  unlimited 
resources  or  beyond  the  wants  of  its  own  people. 

LOW  TARIFF  DEVELOPS  COUNTRY  MOST. 

When  this  is  done  manufacturing  industries  may  add  something  to 
the  wealth  of  the  nation  by  reiuson  of  the  tribute  which  other  nations 
must  pay  to  its  endless  resources  and  the  unrivaled  skill  and  intelli- 
gence of  its  people. 

The  grand  aggregate  of  national  wealth,  counted  in  the  census  at 
$43,300,000,000 in  1880,  was  but $26, 460, 000, 000  in  1870.  “Behold,” 
exclaims  the  protectionist,  ‘ ‘ the  results  of  our  system  which  so  multi- 
plies  and  nearly  doubles  the  wealth  and  national  savings  in  a single  dec- 
ade. ’ ’ Further  investigation  will  show  that  in  the  ten  years  Irom  1850 
to  1860  with  very  low  tariff  taxes  wealth  was  more  than  doubled,  and 
that  was  the  only  decade  in  our  history  which  doubled  wealth.  Pro- 
tection has  prevented  this  industry  from  bringing  anything  to  the 
wealth  of  the  country  from  abroad.  Had  manufacturing  industry  pro- 
duced more  that  could  be  sold  profitably  abroad  it  might  have  better 
claim  to  the  creilit  of  the  country’s  growth  and  development,  when 
for  its  own  prosperity  it  has  been  dependent  upon  other  domestic  in- 
dustries. 

DUTIES  MUST  BE  REDUCED  ON  BOTH  MATERIALS  AND  MANUFACTURES. 

To  the  extent  that  materials  are  relieved  from  tax  the  articles  into 
which  they  enter  derive  advantage  over  competing  articles  of  foreign 
make,  and  the  duty  on  such  competing  articles  should  be  correspond- 
ingly reduced.  Without  this  manufactures  would  be  more  highly  pro- 
tected than  they  now  are  and  more  rates  would  be  prohibitory. 

It  may  be  asserted  that  competition  would  regulate  all  this  in  the 
public  interest,  but  the  assertion  is  not  justified  by  the  practices  of  pro- 
tected interests.  The  fact  is  quite  notorious  that  distinctive  branches 
of  manufacturing  industry  highly  protected  against  foreign  competition 
combine  to  maintain  prices  to  the  injury  of  the  general  public.  In  the 
larger  industries  such  combination  is  more  difficult,  but  it  pervades  the 
whole  system,  and  for  twenty-five  years  Congress  has  been  a party  to 
it.  Some  of  the  larger  industries  have  tariff  committees  to  advise  Con- 
gress how  to  make  laws  that  they  may  make  money.  Opportunities 
for  such  combinations  have  grown  into  monopoly. 

The  use  made  by  the  manufacturers  of  their  advantages  bestowed  by 
Congress  does  not  justify  Congress  in  adding  to  them.  To  compensate 
them  for  income  and  other  domestic  war  taxes  estimated  by  the  advo- 
cates of  more  protection  at  the  time  to  be  $128,000,000,  they  were  given 


13 


largely  increased  protective  rates.  They  secured  the  removal  of  the 
$128,000,000  fifteen  years  ago,  but  adhere  to  the  increased  compensatoiy 
duties  with  the  tenacity  of  men  in  pursuit  of  some  honest  purpose. 

TARIFF  TAXES  DO  NOT  ALL  GO  TO  THE  TREASURY. 

In  estimating  the  causes  of  present  or  possible  financial  and  industrial 
embarrassment  the  great  burden  of  taxation  must  not  be  forgotten. 
Since  1885  national.  State,  and  local  taxes  have  exceeded  $1,200,000,000, 
and  the  contributions  of  the  people  do  not  all  reach  the  Treasury.  This 
is  especially  trae  of  tariff  taxes  imposed  for  protection. 

It  is  sometimes  claimed  that  certain  taxes  are  more  popular  or  less 
unpopular  than  others.  An  iucjuiry  on  that  subject  would  probably 
disclose  the  fact  that  as  a rule  the  tax  will  be  most  pojiular  with  eaeh 
tax-payer  of  which  he  pays  least  and  others  pay  most.  The  sum  nec- 
essary for  good  government  must  be  paid.  When  one  j)aysless  another 
must  pay  more  than  his  fair  proportion.  And  there  is  probably  noth- 
ing for  which  a thoroughly  honest  man  will  so  readily  excuse  himself 
for  being  dishonest  about  as  the  payment  of  taxes.  Still  they  must  be 
paid  and  by  our  own  people. 

The  doctrine  that  the  importer  pays  them  for  us  is  apparently  ex- 
ploded. If  the  foreign  maker  were  permitted  to  and  did  sell  in  our 
market  100  tons  of  iron  at  $1,400,  or  $14  per  ton,  duty  free,  the  maker 
of  iron  here  must  sell  at  the  same  price.  If  a duty  of  $6  were  imposed 
on  the  foreigner  he  must  add  it  to  the  price  and  sell  it  for  $20  if  he  re- 
turns with  the  same  amount  for  his  iron.  Suppose  he  does  not  add 
the  duty  to  the  price,  but  pays  it  himself,  sells  his  iron  at  the  same 
price  as  if  it  paid  no  duty,  $14,  and  returns  with  $8  per  ton;  how 
would  the  maker  of  iron  here  be  benefited  or  protected  ? It  is  only 
because  the  duty  goes  into  the  cost  and  price  of  the  foreign  article  tliat 
the  domestic  producer  is  protected. 

To  afford  protection  a duty  must  be  a tax.  To  what  extent  customs 
revenue  and  the  tax  on  articles  of  foreign  make  add  indirectly  to  the 
annual  burdens  of  the  people  through  the  increased  cost  and  price  of 
the  home-made  competing  article  is  yet  a matter  of  much  speculation. 
Sometimes  the  piice  of  the  domestic  article  is  increased  to  the  amount 
of  the  whole  duty  on  the  foreign ; sometimes  to  no  part  of  it.  But  the 
duty  on  foreign  articles  whenever  they  are  imported  adds  something  to 
the  price  of  what  are  made  here.  Two  years  ago  I made  an  estimate, 
based  on  official  statements  taken  from  the  census  and  Bureau  of  Sta- 
tistics, which  showed  that  in  the  census  year  the  whole  increase  in  cost 
of  sugar  to  the  consumer  resulting  from  the  tariff,  which  on  sugar  and 
molasses  is  largely  a revenue  tarifl:',  was  $48,820,418,  which  was  so  di- 
vided that  the  Treasury  received  $7.51  of  revenue,  while  the  planter 
received  $1  of  bounty. 

: The  duty  on  hoop-iron  was  $31.68  per  ton.  The  price  of  the  domestic 
ai  ticle  was  $14.61  more  than  the  price  of  the  foreign  article,  including 
cost  of  importation,  which  was  an  increase  equal  to  half  the  duty. 
The  Treasury  received  $500,986,  and  the  manufacturer  $1,414,876,  or 
$2  82  for  $1  to  the  Treasury.  On  bar-iron  the  average  duty  was  $22.66 
per  ton;  the  value  and  price  of  the  home  product  was  $7.40  in  excess 
of  the  cost  of  the  imported  article,  including  cost  of  importation,  an 
increase  equal  to  but  one-third  of  the  duty,  and  the  manufaeturer  re- 
ceived $4,907,761  bounty;  the  Government,  $1,641,453  in  duty — $3  to 
manufacturer,  $1  to  the  Government.  Iron  rails  pay  $16.68  duty. 
The  increased  cost  over  the  foreign  article  was  $11.33,  or  two-thirds  of 


14 


the  duty.  The  cost  of  iron  rails  was  increased  by  the  tariff  $6,114,916, 
of  which  $5,290,119  went  to  the  manufacturer,  and  $824,747  to  the 
Treiisury;  $6.41  for  bounty  to  $1  for  revenue.  (III.) 

From  tliis  statement  it  will  appear  that  those  who  use  these  articles 
of  home  production  pay  for  them  at  prices  increased,  some  of  them,  to 
the  extent  of  the  whole  duty;  on  others  less  than  half  the  tax  on  the 
same  goods  when  imported,  and  that  under  this  system  the  annual  tax- 
paying  burdens  of  the  people  do  not  end  with  the  contributions  to  the 
Treiisury  for  public  uses. 

Since  this  statement  or  estimate  was  made  tlie  prices  of  the  articles 
selected  for  illustration  may  have  changed  and  the  duty  on  some  of 
them  have  been  modified;  this  requires  some  modification  of  the  state- 
ments, but  they  illustrate  the  principle  or  lack  of  principle  by  which 
this  system  confers  especial  advantages  on  its  favorites. 

Estimates  of  the  cost  of  this  system  to  the  people  resulting  from  the 
increase  of  prices  and  the  cost  of  living  have  been  made  by  many  who 
have  given  great  consideration  to  the  subject,  among  them  Professor 
Perry  and  Robert  J.  Walker,  both  of  whom  estimated  it  at  much  more 
than  goes  to  the  Treasury.  Mr.  Tilden,  with  more  caution,  writing  of 
our  enormous  taxation,  said: 

It  was  as.i^ravated  by  most  unscientific  and  ill-adj listed  methods  of  taxation 
tliat  increased  the  sacrifices  of  the  people  far  beyond  the  receipts  of  the  Treas- 

«ry. 

PRICKS  AND  COST  OP  LIVING  INCRBL4SED  BY  TARIFF. 

A comparison  of  present  prices  with  those  of  twenty  or  fifty  years  ago 
ean  not  be  made  with  entire  accuracy.  The  make,  style,  and  structure 
of  fabrics  are  continually  changing.  Old  things  new  made  are  given  new 
names.  In  the  report  of  the  Iron  and  Steel  Association  made  in  May 
of  last  year,  already  referred  to,  the  price  of  anthracite  pig-iron  per 
ton  is  given  for  1860  at  $24  per  ton,  for  1880  at  $23;  rolled  bar-iron, 
1860,  at  $60;  for  1880  at  $60,  and  iron  rails,  1860,  at  $48,  for  1880  at  $49. 
These  prices  indicate  that  in  iron  there  has  been  no  decline  of  prices  in 
the  last  twenty-five  years. 

Accurate  comparison  can  not  be  made  in  textile  fabrics  of  cotton,  wool, 
flax,  and  silk ; but  in  these  goods,  of  some  descriptions  at  least,  prices  are 
lower  than  they  were  twenty-five  years  ago,  but  not  nearly  so  low  as 
they  would  be  but  for  the  expense  added  to  the  cost  of  making  them  by 
the  high  rate  of  protective  taxation. 

In  the  statements  made  before  the  committee  by  the  representatives 
of  the  Iron  and  Steel  A.ssociation,  protesting  against  the  bill,  they  said, 
“If  the  duties  are  reduced  the  selling  price  of  our  products  must  be 
reduced;  ” and  such  were  the  statements  made  before  the  committee 
generally,  thus  admitting  that  prices  are  kept  up  by  the  tariff.  Ex- 
cept when  a reductionisproposedthecontrary  doctrine  is  insisted  upon, 
and  before  this  debate  is  ended  it  will  be  insisted  again  and  again  that 
whatever  reduction  of  prices  has  occurred  in  recent  years  results  from 
the  tariff,  when  the  fact  is  they  result  from  the  ever-growing  genius 
and  aptitude  of  men  That  goods  are  made  at  less  cost  year  by  year  by 
reason  of  our  bettered  processes  we  learn  in  the  every-day  affairs  of  life. 

Then  why  should  restrictive  legislation  distribute  the  advantages  of 
all  human  progress  as  applied  to  popular  well-being  among  the  favor- 
ites of  Congressional  legislation  ? If  the  same  effort  is  required  now  as 
long  ago  to  obtain  the  same  comfort  and  good  fortune,  of  what  use  to 
humanity  is  all  we  have  learned?  Only  a few  years  ago  the  cost  of 
railroad  service  was  two  or  three  times  its  present  cost;  their  owners 


16 


«aade  great  redactions  voluntarily  and  still  had  great  profits.  By  rea- 
son of  the  intelligent  use  of  what  has  been  learned  in  building  and 
operating  railroads  further  reductions  were  only  just.  Every  State  in 
the  Union  asserted  the  prerogative  of  the  people  and  required  railroads 
to  carry  at  reasonable  rates.  No  man’s  wages  was  r^uced,  neither 
was  that  subject  inquired  of.  By  reason  of  the  same  causes  which  ena- 
ble railroads  to  carry  cheaper,  the  makers  of  all  things  material  for  use 
in  our  mills,  fields,  and  homes  are  made  cheaper;  and  yet  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  interposes  to  keep  up  prices  and  the  cost  of  human 
comfort,  that  the  people  may  have  no  benefit  of  what  has  been  learned 
in  all  these  years. 

KXPORT  OP  AGRICULTURAL.  PRODUCTS  DOUBLE  THAT  MANUFACTUEERS  USE. 

In  the  lower  cost  of  transportation  on  land  and  sea  is  to  be  found  one 
chief  agency  of  the  wondrous  development  which  bounty-fed  manufact- 
urers credit  to  protection.  The  system,  by  adding  to  the  cost  of  the 
materials  for  railroad  construction,  has  increased  the  cost  of  railroad 
transportation  at  least  25  per  cent.  In  the  lower  cost  of  carrying  agri- 
cultural products  they  have  found  their  only  sources  of  profit.  On  more 
than  one  occasion  here  I have  exposed  the  fallacy  of  obtaining  a home 
market  for  agricultural  products  through  protection  maintained  by  tax- 
ing agriculture.  In  1880  the  agricultural  product  was  counted  in  the 
census  at  12,212,540,927.  Assuming  that  these  products  were  used  bj^ 
the  people  equally  without  regard  to  their  occupations,  those  engaged 
and  employed  in  manufacturing,  including  all  mechanics,  also  miners, 
consumed  of  the  products  classed ‘as  agricultural  $335,000,000  worth, 
while  for  more  than  double  as  much,  or  $685,961,091  worth,  the  pro- 
ducers were  compelled  to  seek  a foreign  market. 

WAGES  OP  LABOR  NOT  HELPED  BY  TAXING  IT. 

During  more  than  half  of  the  last  ten  years  wages  have  been  as  low 
or  lower  than  before  the  adoption  of  the  taxing  policy  as  a pretended 
means  of  making  wages  higher.  They  are  lower  still  when  compared 
with  the  use  which  those  who  earn  wages  are  compelled  to  make  of  them, 
for  they  must  use  them  to  obtain  the  means  of  comfortable  living. 
Counted  by  what  our  laborers  are  able  to  accomplish  and  produce  in 
quantities,  and  especially  in  values,  wages  here  are  but  little  more  in 
many  industries  than  the  wages  paid  by  our  chief  commercial  rivals. 
There  is  but  one  horizontal  reduction  for  which  our  opponents  are  will- 
ing to  legislate — the  reduction  of  wages — and  this  their  favorites,  with 
or  without  regard  to  legislation,  are  now  executing  day  by  day  with 
cruel  regularity. 

Of  all  the  false  pretenses  with  which  protection  mocks  its  victims  the 
assumption  that  labor  is  helped  or  protected  by  taxing  its  earnings  is  the 
flimsiest.  Protectionists,  in  common  with  our  people,  invite  the  sur- 
plus labor  of  all  the  world  to  come,  untaxed,  unrestricted,  free,  and  join 
us  on  equal  terms  and  share  in  the  profits  of  the  wonderful  heritage  this 
newer  world  affords.  The  captains  and  masters  of  industry,  if  not  mas- 
ters of  Congress  as  well,  take  to  themselves  protection  of  a very  differ- 
ent kind — they  tax  the  people  at  home  that  they  may  have  no  compe- 
tition from  abroad. 

REPUBLICAN  PROTECTIONISTS  CURE  THE  ILLS  OF  OVERTAXATION  BY  MORE  TAXES— 
DEMOCRATIC  PROTECTIONISTS  BY  MORE  PLATFORM. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  minority  members  of  the  committee,  represent- 
ing as  they  do  the  friends  of  the  prevailing  policy,  the  cure  for  whatever 
®f  national  ills  exist,  so  far  as  they  result  from  taxation,  is  to  be  foimd 


16 


in  higher-priced  clotliing  and  other  articles  useful  in  fields,  mines,  and' 
homes;  for  that  is  what  is  meant  by  higher-taxed  wool,  fence- rods, 
cotton-bands,  and  tin-plates.  Some  ofour  friends  here  would  cure  the 
ills  of  overtaxation  with  a declaration  of  purpose,  the  execution  of 
which  they  would  carefully  avoid.  And  here  is  the  declaration.  It 
is  called  the  Ohio  platform: 

We  favor  a tarift’for  revenue  limited  to  the  necessities  of  Government  econom- 
ically administered,  and  so  adj  listed  in  its  application  as  to  prevent  unequal  bur- 
dens, encourage  productive  industries  at  home,  aflord  just  compensation  to  labor, 
but  not  to  create  or  foster  monopolies. 

A tariff  for  revenue  limited  to  the  necessities  of  the  Government  is 
demanded  by  this  plan  of  relief.  Is  the  tariff  now  so  limited  ? If  not, 
then  why  refuse  to  limit  it?  Who  among  the  Representatives  of  the 
goodly  people  of  that  State  who  made  this  declaration  believes  it  is  so 
limited?  Who  among  them  believes  the  pending  bill  will  reduce  the 
revenue  below  the  necessities  of  the  Government  ? These  are  ques- 
tions to  which  the  plain  people  of  the  country  want  an  answer.  They 
will  demand  to  know  why  tariff  taxes  are  not  removed  in  part  if  they 
are  beyond  the  revenue  limit.  Do  gentleman  expect  to  escape  responsi- 
bility because  rates  are  not  rightly  adjusted  ? The  adjustment  will  be 
the  same  when  reduction  is  made,  but  whatever  of  monopoly  belongs 
to  it  will  be  fostered  by  20  per  cent,  less  than  it  now  is.  If  this  plat- 
form has  an  honest  meaning  it  is  that  the  tariff  shall  be  lowered  to  a 
revenue  basis.  And  gentlemen  but  deceive  themselves  who  expect  the 
people  will  be  deceived  by  a refusal  to  legislate  in  accordance  with  this 
declared  purpose.  If  the  protective  policy  is  to  be  the  continuing  policy 
of  the  Government,  it  will  be,  and  ought  to  be,  intrusted  to  its  friends, 
the  Republican  party. 

ARGUMENTS  FOR  PROTECTION  BASED  ON  ASSUMED  DANGER  OF  REVENUE  TARIFF. 

Every  argument  in  support  of  the  protective  policy  is  based  on  the 
assumption  that  any  considerable  tariff  modification,  especially  a mod- 
ification to  the  revenue  basis,  will  destroy  manufacturing  industries, 
compel  the  abandonment  of  shops  and  mills,  and  force  those  now  en- 
gaged in  them  into  other  employments.  This  is  the  old,  old  story.  It- 
was  told  of  manufixctiiriug  industries  in  their  infancy;  it  will  be  told 
when  protection  brings  them  to  decay.  Eight  years  ago  I introduced 
the  first  bill  for  free  quinine  and  providing  for  untaxed  alcohol  for  use 
in  making  it.  At  once  it  was  insisted  that  quinine-making  would  be- 
come a lost  art  among  us  if  such  a bill  should  pass  into  a law,  and  it 
did  not  then  pass.  Later  on,  when  the  story  of  free  quinine  got  among 
tlie  people,  another  placed  the  bill  before  the  House,  omitting  thefree- 
alcohol  provision,  and  the  bill  became  a law,  protectionists  themselves 
feeling  obliged  to  vote  for  it.  The  great  Philadelphia  house  did  not 
go  into  decline,  but  continued  its  business  of  quinine-making  success- 
fully as  the  second  largest  quinine  establishment  in  the  world.  So 
every  legitimate  industry  would  go  on  with  a revenue  tariff. 

It  is  insisted  that  wages  are  so  much  higher  here  than  in  countries 
seeking  our  markets  that  revenue  duties  will  not  equalize  the  difference 
in  the  cost  of  production.  Conceding  the  truth  of  what  is  not  true, 
that  the  foreign  rival  must  pay  for  the  privilege  of  selling  in  our  mar- 
kets a sum  equal  to  the  difi'erence  in  wages  to  enable  the  home  producer 
to  sell  with  reasonable  profit,  let  us  see  if  revenue  rates  will  compen- 
sate for  that  difference.  The  census  value  of  manufactures  for  1880  wa» 
$5,369,579,191.  The  wages  paid  in  making  them  were  $947, 953,795w 


17 


The  difference  in  cost  of  goods  is  said  to  be  the  difference  in  the  cost  of 
wages.  But  suppose  the  difference  between  the  cost  here  and  the  cost 
abroad  amounts  to  all  the  wages  paid  here,  then  these  manufactures 
would  cost  abroad  $4,421,625,396.  Suppose  the  average  rate  of  duty 
which  the  bill  before  the  House  leaves  at  33  per  cent,  was  reduced  to 
22  per  cent.,  and  at  that  rate  this  $4,421,625,396  in  value  of  goods  was 
imported.  It  would  cost  the  importer  at  that  rate,  of  22  per  cent., 
$972,757,587,  which  not  only  makes  up  for  the  difference  in  wages  but 
exceeds  all  the  wages  paid  for  making  all  the  goods. 

If  those  who  claim  especial  friendship  for  manufacturing  industries 
will  insist  on  their  going  into  decay  and  then  dying,  some  other  apology 
must  be  found  for  their  taking  off  than  the  removal  of  unnecessary 
taxes. 


APPENDIX. 

I. 


IRatemml  showing  total  and  per  capita  importations  in  the  years  18G0,  1880,  and 

1883. 


1860. 

1880. 

1882. 

Population - 

31.443,321 

50, 155,783 

54, 163,000 

Total  importations 

$353,616,119  00 
11  24 
279,874,640  00 

8 90 

73, 741, 479  00 

2 34 

$667,954,746  00 
13  31 
459,652,883  00 

9 16 

208,301,863  00 

4 15 

$724,639,574  00 
13  72 
514,060,567  00 
9 73 

210,579,007  00 
3 98 

Importations  to  the  person 

Dutiable 

Dutiable  to  the  person 

Free  merchandise 

Free  to  the  person 

n. 

March  11, 1884,  Mr.  Morrison,  from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  sub- 
mitted the  following  report : 

The  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  to  which  was  referred  so  much  of  the 
President’s  message  and  accompanying  documents  as  relates  to  the  revenue, 
respectfully  rem^rts  that  in  said  message  and  accompanying  documents  the 
President  has  deemed  it  his  duty  to  give  to  the  Congress  Information  as  follows  ; 

“To  make  a start  in  the  propofied  reduction  of  revenue  from  Imports,  the  Tariff 
Commission  had  been  created.  In  good  faith  it  undertook  the  work.  In  its  re- 
port to  Congress  it  said  : Early  in  its  deliberations  the  Conmiission  became  con- 
vinced that  a substantial  reduction  of  tariff  duties  is  demoded,  not  by  a mere 
indiscriminate  popular  clamor,  but  by  the  best  conservative  opinion  of  the 
country.  • * * Such  a reduction  of  the  existing  tariff  the  Commission  re- 
gards not  onlyas  a due  recognition  of  public  sentiment  and  ameasure  of  justice 
to  consumers,  butone  con  duel  veto  the  general  industrial  prosperity,  and  which, 
though  it  may  be  temporarily  Inconvenient,  will  be  ultimately  beneficial  to  the 
special  interests  affected  by  such  reduction.  Entertaining  these  views,  the  Com- 
mission has  sought  to  present  a scheme  of  tariff  duties  in  which  substantial  re- 
duction should  be  the  distinguishiiig  feature.  The  average  reduction  in  rates, 
Including  that  from  the  enlargement  of  the  free  list  and  the  abolition  of  the  duties 
on  charges  and  commissions,  at  winch  the  Commission  has  aimed,  is  not  le.ss 
on  the  average  than  20  per  cent.,  and  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Commission  that 
the  reduction  will  reach  25  per  cent.” 

* * « * * « « 

“ The  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance,  In  explanation  of  thebill 
before  the  Senate  last  year,  which,  after  various  amendments  became  a law,  es- 
timated at  $45,000,000  the  reducti»)n  of  the  revenue  which  would  follow  the 
changes  in  the  tariff  propo.sed  thereby. 

“ These  Intentions  and  calculations  have  not  been  verified. 

* m * * *00* 

“ So  the  question  still  presses,  what  legislation  is  necessary  to  relieve  the  peo- 
ple of  unnecessary  taxes?  ” 

Mo 2 


18 


Your  committee  find  that  in  the  first  six  months  ending  December  31, 1883, 
under  act  of  March  3, 1883  (the  new  law),  dutiable  merchandise  was  Imported 
into  the  United  States  valued  at  8235,898,109,  on  which  duties  were  paid  amount- 
ing to  $96,514,136,  being  40.91  per  cent,  on  the  value  thereof.  In  the  correspond- 
ing six  months  of  the  year  1882,  under  the  old  law,  the  value  of  dutiable  imports 
amounted  to  $260,856,^3,  and  the  duty  paid  was  $111,266,507,  or  42.65  per  cent,  on 
the  value.  It  thus  appears  that  the  average  cost  of  importing  goods  valued  at 
$100  was  only  $1.74  less  under  the  new  than  under  the  old  law. 

This  exhibit  of  reduction  in  rates  made  by  act  of  March  3, 1883,  amounting  to 
1.74  per  cent,  of  the  duty,  is  subject  to  an  unimportant  modification  resulting 
from  changes  in  value  and  other  conditions,  some  of  which  increase  and  others 
reduce  comparative  ad  valorem  rates. 

The  nominal  reduction  made  by  the  proposed  bill  is  20  i>er  cent.,  or  one-fifth 
of  the  present  rates.  With  the  Morrill  tariff  limitations  in  the  bill,  and  the  liquor 
and  silk  schedules  omitted,  as  they  are,  the  actual  reduction  on  the  basis  of  last 
year’s  imports  will  not  exceed  15.74  per  cent,  on  the  whole  importation  of  dutia- 
ble goods.  Together  the  average  reduction  made  in  the  Tariff  Commission  bill 
(act  of  March  3, 1883)  and  that  to  be  made  by  the  proposed  bill  do  not  equal  the 
reduction  “at  which  the  commission  aimed.” 

Wood,  sawed  lumber,  coal,  and  salt  are  of  such  universal  use  among  and  so 
necessary  to  all  the  people  that  in  view  of  the  present  abundant  Treasury  re- 
ceipts it  is  not  deemed  advisable  longer  to  obtain  revenue  from  a tax  on  these 
articles. 

The  decrease  in  revenue  as  shown  by  the  receipts  under  the  new  law  other 
than  that  resulting  from  the  nominal  reduction  of  1.74  per  cent,  results  from  the 
falling  off  to  the  value  of  nearly  $25,000,000  of  imports  in  the  first  half  year, 
under  the  new  law,  as  compared  with  first  half  of  the  previous  year  under  the 
old  law.  The  reduction  of  revenue  receipts  under  the  bill  reported  is  estimated 
at  $31,000,000  on  the  basis  of  last  year’s  imports.  To  the  extent  of  that  $31,000,000 
the  bill  will  “ relieve  the  people  of  unnecessa^  taxes.”  To  that  extent  taxes 
will  be  reduced  directly  ‘‘as  a measure  of  justice  to  consumers,”  and  indirectly 
in  largely  increased  proportion. 

From  a statement  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics,  a copy  of  which  is  ap- 
pended to  this  report,  it  appears  that  duties  or  tariff  taxes  were  decreased  on 
some  and  increased  on  other  articles  of  imported  goods  under  act  of  March  last 
(the  new  law).  While  this  is  true,  there  has  been  no  increase  of  the  rates  of 
wages  in  any,  but  a reduction  of  wages  in  most  industries,  as  well  in  those 
whose  competing  products  received  more  as  in  those  that  obtained  less  protec- 
tion under  the  act  of  March  last. 

The  condition  of  manufacturing  Industries  is  not  satisfactory.  In  common 
with  other  industries  they  only  recovered  late  in  1879  from  reverses  or  partial 
paralysis  of  five  years’  duration.  In  less  than  three  years’  after  this  recovery 
such  new  evidences  of  industrial  adversity  appeared  that  in  one  of  the  largest, 
bestrpaying,  and  best-paid  industries,  iron  and  steel,  the  calamity  of  four  months’ 
stoppages  and  idleness  fell  upon  the  workers  dei>endent  upon  it,  not  upon  the 
capital  invested  in  it. 

In  the  annual  report  of  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Association  for  the  year 
1882,  made  May  1, 1883,  by  James  M.  Swank,  esq.,  secretary  of  the  association, 
he  says : 

“At  the  beginning  of  June  nearly  all  the  mills  referred  to  (rolling-mills  of 
Pittsburgh  and  the  West)  were  closed  by  a general  strike,  which  continued  until 
the  last  of  September,  when  work  was  resumed  upon  the  scale  of  wages  which 
had  previously  prevailed.  During  the  strike  of  four  months  the  prices  of  rolled 
iron  did  not  advance,  notwithstanding  the  stoppage  of  so  many  mills,  a fact 
which  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  capacity  to  produce  this  form  of  iron  had 
again,  as  in  the  panic  years,  exceeded  the  demand.  * * * At  the  same  time 
it  must  be  frankly  admitted  that  our  rolling-mill  capacity  has  for  some  time 
been  in  advance  of  the  consumptive  wants  of  the  country,  and  that  the  check  to 
the  overproduction  of  rolled  iron  which  was  afforded  by  the  strike  of  1882  was 
in  no  sense  a calamity  to  the  manufacturers.” 

It  is  believed  by  your  committee  that  the  condition  of  the  iron  and  steel  indus- 
tries and  of  the  workers  in  them  has  not  much  improved  since  1882;  that  the 
condition  of  other  industries  is  not  unlike  and  differs  only  in  degree  from  iron 
and  steel ; that  the  calamity  of  frequent-recurring  industrial  embarrassment  and 
enforced  idleness  is  inseparable  from  the  enormities  of  our  protective  system ; 
and  that  the  calamities  of  such  a system  always  fall  upon  the  laboring  |)oor. 

Your  committee  therefore  report  the  bill  with  the  title  above,  and  with  the 
recommendation  that  it  be  passed  “ as  a measure  of  partial  relief  to  the  people 
from  unnecessary  taxes,  as  a measure  of  justice  to  con^imers,”  and  “conducive 
to  the  general  industrial  prosperity.” 


Values  of  imports  of  dutiable  merchandise  enUred  for  cmmmptim  in  the  United  States,  mth  the  amount  of  duty  and  the  ad  valr- 
oretn  rate  of  duty  collected,  duHng  the  six  months  ended  December  31, 1882  and  1883. 


19 


Increase  -|- 
Decrease  — 

Ad  valorem. 

lO  o®(N(Nci®^  •geo 

1 1 1 1 1 M ++ 1 ++++ 

Value. 

— $24, 958, 128 
+ 2,368,360 

— 8,800,489 

+ 1,188,826 

+ 480,554 

+ 839,405 

— 335, 875 

— 2,900,219 

+ 1,287,133 

— 598, 195 

— 328, 108 

— 2,258,624 

— 21,457 

^ 

Six  months  under  the  new  law— 1883. 

Ad  valorem 
rate  of  duty 
collected. 

Per  cent. 
40.91 
49.40 

33. 44 

44.73 
43.48 
25. 02 
68.90 
40.07 
49. 83 
47.85 
55.47 

90.30 

48.10 

Duty  col- 
lected. 

$96,514,136 

23,121,601 

7,924,225 

1.073.311 
267,704 

1,087,094 
15,202, 183 
4,835,714 
10, 617, 057 
1,830,363 
2,187,362 

2.659.312 
235,823 

Value. 

$235,898,109 

46,800,671 

2^^698,937 

2,399,515 
615, 677 
4, 345, 385 
22,064,512 
12,067,631 
21,286,252 
3,824,951 
8,943, 197 
2,945,001 
490,315 

Six  months  under  the  old  law— 1882. 

Ad  valorem 
rate  of  duty 
collected. 

Per  cent. 
42.65 
52. 17 

39. 12 

55. 46 
50. 19 
27.79 
66. 71 
37. 61 
58. 69 
42.88 
54.49 
71.22 
44.43 

Duty  col- 
lected. 

$111,266,507 

23,180,590 

12,713,996 

671,415 
67, 839 
974, 202 
14,943, 626 
5,629,658 
11,738,469 
1,896,705 
2,327,660 
3,706,142 
227,370 

Value. 

$260,856,237 
44,432, 311 

32, 499, 426 

1,210,689 
135,123 
3,505,980 
22,400,387 
14, 967, 850 
19, 999, 119 
4,423,146 
4,271,305 
5, 203, 625 
611,772 

All  dutiable  merchandise 

Sugar  and  melada 

Iron  and  steel  and  manufac- 
tures thereof. 

Wool: 

Clothing 

Combing 

Carpet 

Manufactures  of  wool 

Manufactures  of  cotton 

Manufactures  of  silk 

Earthen  and  chinaware 

Glass ^nd glapware 

Sffcu!  ^ 

i 

: 

1 

I 


StcUetneni  of  tlie  quantity,  value,  &c.,  of  domesHe  and  foreign  hoop  (band  and  scroll)  and  bar  iron,  iron  rails,  sugar  and  mo- 
lasses prodvmd  and  imported  into  the  United  iStates  during  the  year  ended  June  30,  1880. 


20 


J 

If 

t A 


ao 


& 


I 


6 

SI 


-tj 

Sa- 

il 

tH 

e 


SI 

sa 


1 1 

11 


: : 
i : 


8§ 

§ 


^ 

io>  o 

I 

5 I 


i i 
j j 


8S5 
^2  i 


» 

3 

8 


S8SS88 
S *1 

fe  >0 


3 

J S2 


c I 
o 6 
‘■S  3 

■si! 

0..2  3 


0?  * t.  B> 


T3  s s 2t3 

jj.S.ia  a ® a « 
a 3 > 

1 0)  « 3 ® <u 


ri  ® 

3 «' 


2 ® O 3 O £ 

® ® ® 3'S,ft--S-S  3 
3 3©  3332 

-3 -3 -2  3 ©"S  3 3 3.2 


Bugar  and  molasses,  year  1880. 


21 


30112 


88344 


